"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> "Fredrik Eriksson" <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 May 2010 22:12:00 +0200, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > > Finally got myself a HDTV, an entry level, 32 inches Sony Bravia.
> >
> > KDL-32EX302? That is the only entry-level 32" Bravia I could find; the
> > other 32" models are all "Full-HD", i.e. 1080p. There might be other
> > models available where you live though.
>
> EX305, which I didn't find at the Sony site outside Brazil.  Possibly a model
> based on this one, with adaptations for brazilian digital TV.
>
> > > here's my question:  is the 720p limit bogus?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > >  Actually, it's described in the specification of the TV as a

> >
> > That is the actual resolution of the display panel, and thus the upper
> > limit of what the TV can display.
> >
> > > Fact is, the screen was pretty able to display pictures higher than the
> > > 768 limit without even filling up the whole screen -- and yes, I tried
> > > different "wide" size modes.  It has not seemingly "downscaled", they
> > > simply display just nicely in normal size mode, leaving plenty of empty
> > > space.
> >
> > If the image is larger than 1366x768, it gets downscaled. You might not
> > notice any lack of detail, because the images you are looking at are not
> > very big to begin with, but they do get downscaled.
>
> If they get downscaled why there still are plenty of empty pixels at the
> borders, both vertical and horizontal?
>
> Just to be absolutely sure, I rerendered a scene of mine in the exact 1366x768
> resolution:
>
> http://i49.tinypic.com/xsne9.jpg
>
> I don't understand why a picture in the exact resolution of the specced
> resolution would need to get so "downscaled" as to leave plenty of empty pixels
> all around.
>
> I was about to agree with you that it's all downscaled because I thought perhaps
> it could be that normal display mode was actually trying to fit all pictures to
> 4:3 screen proportion.  But this doesn't follow, because pictures larger than
> 16:9 are not following this rule.
>
> It's also worth of note that pictures far smaller than the supposed physical
> limit seem to display in correct proportion in relation to the larger pictures.
>
> I'm thinking of asking this in a specialized HDTV site...

BTW, only now I noticed the TV comes with a small set of sample pictures of
landscapes.  Look bright and amazing and here's the catch:  their resolution is
1920x1080.  They fit the whole screen in normal mode.  They also display the
same in "wide" or "face zoom".  I wonder why would they fill a TV with images
this size if they wouldn't fit except downscaled.

of course, I'm not complaining, I just find it odd! :D

Post a reply to this message